Bandkeramik and non-Anatolian PIE

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 2/29/2000 6:20:54 AM, JoatSimeon at aol.com wrote:

>-- that simply does not work and makes no sense.  Eg., Hittite is intrusive
>in Anatolia, the internal relationships of the other IE languages show none
>of the links one would expect (eg., Greek is not particularly closely related
>to Anatolian), etc.

First you say that Greek is intrusive than you say Hittite must be intrusive
because it is not related to Greek.  Well, then my explantion is either
Hittite's intrusive or Greek's intrusive and that's why they don't have to be
closely related.

Using a language that came from somewhere else to prove that another language
came from somewhere else - because the two languages are not closely related.
That makes NO sense.

So the answer is - Hittite should not be closely related to Greek, if Greek
is intrusive. So Greek proves nothing about Hittite's lack of intrusiveness.

If you even looked at my post for a moment to see what I actually was saying,
you'd see that I'm NOT sure that Renfrew (not the Bible) might not need to be
revised about Greek - not as sure as you might be about ALL such things
anyway.

JoatSimeon at aol.com wrote:

>Hittite is intrusive
>in Anatolia, the internal relationships of the other IE languages show none
>of the links one would expect...

I know this is a waste of time, but what SPECIFIC internal relationships are
you talking about?  What SPECIFIC links would you expect?  And what do you
mean by other IE languages?  I know you won't answer any of these, but I'll
ask anyway.

What do you think Hittite is closely related to?  Where was it supposed to be
intruding from?

In your last post, you have the entire Ukraine and maybe even the Balkans
occupied by a Greek-Sanskrit-Armenian dialectical continum.  You have
Anatolia completely encircled.  So where do you think Hittite came from?
What PRECISELY is Hittite supposed to be closely related to in this scheme?
Are you hinting at something extraterrestial?

I wrote:

>>My read on this is that "PIE minus Anatolian" forms on the Danube and becomes
>>Bandkeramik.

>-- leaving what, exactly, in the Balkans and the Mediterranean areas which
>were neolithicized via an east-to-west movement?

Well, if you didn't snip out the answer in my original post, you'd have
already have half an answer.

<<My read on this is that "PIE minus Anatolian" forms on the Danube and becomes
Bandkeramik.  The predecessor "Anatolian-Balkan painted pottery" culture
found in the Balkans and Anatolia represents the residue of 'wide PIE' AFTER
the split and would include proto-Hittite-Luwian...>>

Cardial Ware cultures in the Italian and Iberian peninsulas pose a different
problem.  These are somewhat distinct from Bandkeramik and not clearly
related in assemblages to the earlier Balkan-Anatolian culture.  And Cardial
really is a group of related assemblages without the coherence of
Bandkeramik.  Miguel Carrasquer Vidal I believe thinks Cardial Ware
represents non-Indoeuropean speaking cultures.  Renfrew in 1987 has it coming
out of the Balkans, but a number of its features can now be associated very
early with the Levant and Cyprus and as someone else mentioned elsewhere on
the list there may be some North African evidence - particularly I think with
regard to the genes found in some domesticates.

Where Cardial culture was present, we find the only indisputable evidence of
non-indoeuropean languages in western Europe (aside from perhaps the Picts.)
The ranges of Basque, Iberian, Etruscan, non-IE Ligurian and other vestiges
of non-IE languages in Italy all match almost identically the former
territory of Cardial Ware - with IE languages generally appearing intrusive.

It's obvious that along most of the Mediterranean coast, neolithization would
not have been the province of IE speakers.  Clearly there were other
neolithic settlements or conversions going on throughout the Near East and
around the Mediterranean and those cultures emerge as not being IE speaking.
Cardial Ware may have represented somesuch cultures.

I wrote:

>(and possibly proto-Phrygian-Thracian, though don't hold me to that.)

JoatSimeon at aol.com wrote:

>-- good thing you added the qualifier, since Phrygian shows close links to
>Greek and none in particular to Anatolian.

Once again, I'll have to ask you what SPECIFIC links you are talking about.
>From all I know, Phrygian doesn't show much of anything and its evidence is
about a 1000 years later than Luwian and Hittite.

I wrote:

>>the language of the first large, widespread technically advanced population
>>in Europe - adept at trade, agriculture, building and metallurgy -
>>whom must have by the way had an extremely adequate language of their own,
>>but who nevertheless left no substrate.

JoatSimeon at aol.com replied:

>-- you have evidence for there being no LBK substrate in, eg., proto-Germanic?

Couldn't be better evidence against it.  The linguistics match almost
perfectly with the material when it comes to attributing that substrate to
something else besides Bandkeramik.

It is easy to attribute the proposed Germanic substrate to the successful and
somewhat isolated mesolithic culture found in Jutland and thereabouts.  The
demarcation line is almost a perfect match for the resulting hybrid TRB and
the earliest locations of Germanic speakers.

The ONLY place where funnel beaker (TRB) shows up is in historic Germanic
(and some western Slavic) territories.  The supposed substrate in Germanic
does not appear in Celtic.  TRB does not appear in historic Celtic
territories.  You couldn't have a better correlation between material
cultural and a substrate.

And because Bandkeramik extended from Holland to the Ukraine, you couldn't
have a worse fit for the unique substrate alleged in Germanic.

I wrote the Bandkeramik-narrow PIE theory has the...

>>the advantage of plausibility - for what that is worth in this crazy world.

JoatSimeon at aol.com wrote:

>-- if one disregards all linguistic considerations, which is odd, when one is
>trying to solve a _linguistic_ problem.

Now I'm disregarding ALL linguistic considerations, am I?

The ability to understand this special meaning of "linguistic considerations"
must be very exclusive. It may even be only understood by only one person.
Most of us will ever be able to fully grasp it, no matter how deeply we drink
of its mysteries.  Am I right?

Regards,
Steve Long

by ARA